US Government Open Data MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the types of detailed information returned (sponsors, CBO estimates, etc.), which goes beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or potential data freshness issues that could be relevant for a congressional data tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is perfectly concise with two sentences: the first states the purpose and scope, the second specifies the required parameters. Every word earns its place, and the most important information (what it does) is front-loaded. No wasted words or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only tool with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides adequate context about what information is returned. However, without an output schema, the description could be more complete by hinting at the structure or format of the returned details (e.g., whether it's a structured object with nested fields for each information type).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters (congress, law_type, law_number). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the parameters are required, but doesn't provide additional semantic context (e.g., format examples beyond what's in the schema, or how law numbers relate to public/private law types).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific public or private law'), with explicit examples of the information included ('sponsors, CBO cost estimates, committee reports, and constitutional authority statement'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on law details rather than bills, amendments, or other congressional data.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool by specifying the required parameters ('Requires congress number, law type, and law number'), which implies it's for retrieving details of known laws. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for related tasks (e.g., congress_recent_laws for discovery or congress_bill_details for pre-enactment legislation).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.